[AISWorld] Fwd: Re: On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
Galletta, Dennis
galletta at katz.pitt.edu
Thu Oct 17 10:37:04 EDT 2013
As a journal editor, these stories are always frightening. But to provide a little levity, and a few smiles, you MUST read the following blog entry so you can see the hilarious clues about the paper’s authenticity, or lack thereof:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/a-serbian-sokal-authors-spoof-pub-with-ron-jeremy-and-michael-jackson-references/
It will lead you to try and read a little of the paper, only to recoil in pain and agony.
In that otherwise hilarious blog, some were questioning the actual existence of the journal. I am unable to find the journal in the EBSCO system under Engineering, so the jury still seems to be out given some of their links are to EBSCO that purport to defend its existence. This recalls a famous similar hoax in 1996 by Sokal that has been covered extensively elsewhere (outlined nicely in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).
I believe the editorial process will stand up to these jokes. The marginal journals are the most vulnerable. But in any event, reviewers and editors obviously should read the papers they agree to review.
DG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis F. Galletta Professor of Business Administration
University of Pittsburgh and Director, Katz Doctoral Program
282a Mervis Hall Katz Graduate School of Business
Phone +1 412-648-1699 Pittsburgh, PA 15260
E-mail: galletta @ Fax +1 412-648-1693
katz.pitt.edu homepage: www.pitt.edu/~galletta<http://www.pitt.edu/~galletta>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of Ejub Kajan
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 10:03 AM
To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
Cc: ekajan at ieee.org
Subject: [AISWorld] Fwd: Re: On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
Wake up people,
------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Ejub Kajan" <ejubkajan at sbb.rs<mailto:ejubkajan at sbb.rs>>
To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
Cc: ekajan at ieee.org<mailto:ekajan at ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:27:25 +0200
My dear friends and colleges,
Attached is an article that addressed several important issues on papers reviews, where the misserable of review process *or not at all) has occurred . Authors have proved , with a lot of carriage (the paper has made intentionally), that everything is possible if there no control over it, that so-called scientific people may reach full professor positions due that administration.
I would like to pay attention to reference section where Walt Disney actor has been cited, Laplas has given his oppinion on the Web and many other stpitides,
Actually, there is no reviews, authors paid for paper appearance, conditions applied are cited articles in that journal and paid fee.
WHAT ISI (THOMSON REUTERS) yet wait to send this journal into history.
I think that authors of this paper should be reworded by many thanks by scientific community.
Thanks,
Ejub
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:25:57 +0200, John Lamp <john.lamp at deakin.edu.au<mailto:john.lamp at deakin.edu.au>> wrote:
When dealing with new reviewers, you could not really do better than to direct them to Allen Lee’s note on reviewing a manuscript for publication. It was originally published in the Journal of Operations Management, but is online at:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/referee.htm
Fifteen simple (well maybe) criteria to address to create a decent review. I still refresh my mind from it when doing a review.
Cheers
John
From: aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of William Tastle
Sent: Thursday, 17 October 2013 12:43 AM
To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
I, too, am a former journal editor and the difficulties in securing proper reviewers is sometimes a bit of a challenge. However, I consider it a responsibility of scholars to engage in a mentoring function with respect to paper reviewing. In general, the best reviews are from the senior researchers and hence, they are thepeople most bombarded with review requests. Those reviews are nurturing and guiding as they attempt to raise the quality of content (and writing style) such that the paper crosses the threshold of acceptability. The worst reviews, again speaking very generally and without benefit of a scientific effort to confirm my experiential observations, are from the younger, or perhaps more insecure, scholars who seemingly engage in a “slap leather” attitude towards the review process. Their reviews are more apt (again, a generalization) to be vicious in content and of little use to the paper author.
I recall a story from Ben Schneiderman about how his seminal paper on structure diagrams was severely trashed by some reviewers until it was finally published, only to become one of the most downloaded papers in the journal’s history. I heard a similar story, again first hand, from Lotfi Zadeh on his theory of fuzzy sets. They persevered to success. We have a responsibility to mentor our colleagues, just as we have (hopefully) been mentored ourselves.
However, this does not excuse a poorly written or researched paper. That is sloppy work and papers of that sort should simply be returned to the authors without any review until the basic threshold of scientific literacy is reached.
Bill Tastle, Professor of IS, Ithaca College
From: aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of MurphJen at aol.com<mailto:MurphJen at aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:42 PM
To: mmora at securenym.net<mailto:mmora at securenym.net>; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
I'm not sure what the point of the below is but I'll add my perception as a journal editor in chief. Quite frankly authors are lucky to get reviews. I have seen a flood of submissions the last 2 years from all parts of the world where before I saw mostly US and European submissions. I think this is good but, there are a lot of junior level papers and not enough senior level reviewers to go around. The trend I do not like is that of authors feeling it is their right to get their reviews quick. I'm not sure if this is an output of the open source journals that have promised fast turnarounds, but to get quality reviews takes time as there simply aren't enough quality reviewers who have the time to be almost full time reviewers. My gripe (and I admit it is as an EiC) is that it seems everyone wants/has to author papers and few have the desire/time to review. Also, unfortunately, new authors don't seem to understand the concept of a thorough literature review and seem to have taken the debate on the ethics of recommending papers from the journal being submitted to, or of previous papers from senior reviewers as license to ignore them.
This leads to my major question: Why should a journal spend limited reviewing resources on doing thorough reviews of papers that do not meet the basic standard of scholarly research by grounding themselves in the literature.
I am tired of the excuse that the authors do not have access to the articles so they ignore them. I see so much research that authors consider new but is at best a minor extension of something that has been published but the authors did not or could not get the article to know it.
I think we are at a crossroads of scholarly literature. We argue about plagiarism but I think we are seeing a greater issue of authors not looking at the literature so that they can make the claim "there is little research" or that "this is new" as a justification for their paper. To give credit we have to recognize the research that has been done, to build a body of knowledge we have to build on what has been done, not do it over and over again.
If authors want quality reviews they need to show the respect to the senior scholars by at least looking at their work and building on it rather than trying to waste their time by making them tell them what literature to look at rather than addressing the quality of the paper.
Also, I propose that we establish a new ethic: authors can only submit if they serve as reviewers. I am also tired of hearing the cries of needing to get published to get tenure or promotion so they don't have time to review. We need all universities to start recognizing the intellectual contribution of reviewing as being on equal or near equal par with authoring. Do this and we will all have quality reviews.
sorry to rant but you can see this has touched a nerve that has been throbbing for a while.
Murray E. Jennex, Professor of MIS, San Diego State University
In a message dated 10/15/2013 5:05:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, mmora at securenym.net<mailto:mmora at securenym.net> writes:
Dear colleagues,
In past weeks, a strong and relevant debate on the academic influence
of ISI listed journals was discussed in this forum. Well, on same ideas
I wonder whether there are studies on the quality of the reviewers (e.g.
level of seniority, level of expertise in the topic, level of expertise
on research methods, and in particular on the role played as peers
seeking to improve the advance of science and suggesting clear insights
rather some simple elaborations of flaws without any rational justification).
In summary, are we living in a spiral of hard reviewers and bad researchers?
or rather the opposite one is the reality? I am sure that Senior researchers
will have reviewed rare reviews from people with less expertise and seniority
level, so comments on it are welcome ! Of course, this non ethical practice
should be eliminated. As a funny real history, a Mexican top researcher
in Education received a strong critique on the null value of paper that
he wrote, and the suggestion was to use some papers writen by him in the
past (of course, the reviewers did know it). I know of other cases similar
cases. Well, sciences is about truthness but wrong reviews maybe are now a
real headache ! Cheers !
Manuel Mora
ACM Senior Member
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org>
Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free.
--
Ejub Kajan
State University of Novi Pazar
Editor of Electronic Business Interoperability: Concepts, Opportunities and Challenges
Editor of Handbook of Research on E-Business Standards and Protocols
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Ejub Kajan
State University of Novi Pazar
Editor of Electronic Business Interoperability: Concepts, Opportunities and Challenges
Editor of Handbook of Research on E-Business Standards and Protocols
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20131017/f309a75c/attachment.html>
More information about the AISWorld
mailing list